Factorio Forums

>If it's too complex it is no commercial success, no updates, sad ssilk.

I'm beginning to think the devs have some extra bias against waste management. Saying it would make the game too complicated is like saying having a queen in chess makes chess too complicated. It does make it more complicated, but chess is more fun with queens on the board.

How do you know it'll make the game too complex? Have the dev team bumped up against the upper limit of complexity already in several prior versions? Where are the threads with a lot of community complaining " the game is too complex! I can't enjoy it! Make it simpler !"

I haven't looked, but i bet those threads don't exist. The complexity of factorio is about 2 orders of magnitude less than spacechem, but spacechem was a success.

Please don't be stupid.

I explained here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27087 exactly, what is meant: If a suggestion adds more complexity than gameplay it is a "not so good" suggestion.
So this is such one: Adds a ton of complexity, but not really new gameplay. More complexity: More items, that needs to be transported in narrow areas, you need to build more inserters and belts, cause it is basically just the need to bring more things from A to B.
But that is no new gameplay! It already exists and the numerous numbers of mods about this subject shows it.
The example with chess and queen is for example vice vera: The queen adds only a little complexity (a new figure that runs like tower and bishop in one), but a lot of new gameplay.

Hope that helps to understand why I'm not so convinced about this.

are u one of the devs? U can't be. Not with that view of the game. It would never have got to this level of complexity. It would be like 100 other generic simplified management games.

To my mind you are diametrically opposed to what makes this game great fun and unique - solving logistics. More logistics => more fun. The game is arguably in a sandbox version of itself, with nearly all buildings having only one output. The exception being oil refineries. I liked the oil part of the game, not least because of multiple outputs.

Did you notice you avoided my question?

Where are the threads with a lot of community complaining " the game is too complex! I can't enjoy it! Make it simpler !"

The answer is inconvenient to your view.

Players have come here for the unique factory logistics. They even commonly remove the aliens and all the combat aspect of the game that the devs have put a lot of work into. I think aliens are decent and add some needed pressure, but most players want even more focus on logistics than I do, and I can understand that, because its very fun & unique to factorio.
Any 'new gamplay' is in danger of diluting the logistics part of the game even further.

Do you speak for the devs? Are they are set on keeping the logistics are simple as possible?
That is sad.

I don't agree with your view of gamplay vs complexity. And anyway, the concept we are asking for is simple.
It can also be stated in a different and simple form : buildings should commonly have more than one output product. Is that an evil you are trying to avoid? It is not fundamentally complex, but the gameplay that results should create the logistics nightmare that players desire and perceive when he sees the factorio adverts. Factorio already successfully has it working, but just on one building : the oil refinery.

If factorio didn't have complex logistic problems, no-one would be here. Give us more of the same, it should be obvious, and the one word concept of 'waste' is a good way to do it. No one cares about 'different gameplay'. We can play millions of other games for that.

meems wrote:are u one of the devs? U can't be. Not with that view of the game. It would never have got to this level of complexity. It would be like 100 other generic simplified management games.

I'm one of the voluntary moderators as you can see and my "special interest" is the suggestion board. And as that I try to sort, categorize and score most of the ideas, that are coming in. This is REALLY COMPLEX stuff and I really still like it.
One of my jobs as moderator in this case is (in my eyes) to avoid useless discussion. Useless discussion is for example if we have opposite opinions and none can prove his opinion right. Or like here: A suggestion, where all aspects have already have been discussed and it begins to swift into a meta-discussion cause of missing REALITY input.
So in this case. I think this explains most of the distractions you have: I don't want to loose too much time with this kind of "standard" suggestions. It's really not easy to grab through the 100+ suggestions per month and see/find out, that 70% is already suggested in one or other form. It takes a lot of time to be honest and so it should not wonder, that I try to make things short. This is not the problem, but it explains the problem I have with that; It's a trap I'm always in danger to fall into: Is this already suggested or brings it in a new aspect? And not "Do others like my opinion?".

So also here: Waste production idea is OLD. It has been discussed many times in different aspects. I have had tons of ideas myself brought into. So I have a lot of knowledge plus I'm a bit personally involved. The problem: Human brain is thought to categorize information fast and it can happen (and it happenend me here some times), that I misread stuff, cause I was tired or it was just misinterpreted. That's unavoidable.

So to be fair and avoid such misinterpretation I reread the whole thread (and some of the old stuff) now before I answered, to bring back all in my short-time-memory, which is known to be much more exact in such cases.

To my mind you are diametrically opposed to what makes this game great fun and unique - solving logistics. More logistics => more fun. The game is arguably in a sandbox version of itself, with nearly all buildings having only one output. The exception being oil refineries. I liked the oil part of the game, not least because of multiple outputs.

The assemblies are already able to output more than one item.

But it's only used in mods. Guess why.

Did you notice you avoided my question?

Where are the threads with a lot of community complaining " the game is too complex! I can't enjoy it! Make it simpler !"

The answer is inconvenient to your view.

You can search them yourself. I help you:
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... complex%22

Players have come here for the unique factory logistics.

Yes, but others come for the puzzling part of the game and other for multiplayer and others for the combat. It's just your point of view. As moderator I have to look for the whole.

Any 'new gamplay' is in danger of diluting the logistics part of the game even further.

That is why it's much better to have a mod, that proves me wrong. Modding is the way to change basic game-concepts. See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30240 I want to make suggestions, but I got links to mods!!

Do you speak for the devs? Are they are set on keeping the logistics are simple as possible?

I do not speak for the devs, I do speak for the game. That's my highest priority. Cause a good game gets big sales, so the devs earn money and will improve the game and increases my fun. If Factorio would not be such a good game I would not make this moderator job. And no, it's not because of me doing such a good job , it's cause the devs do this fantastic work.

And I try to speak for the community. This is much more difficult, cause never impartial. For example: How many users will come and blaim here for the game being too complex and will suggest a simpler gameplay cause of that? Not so much. Cause such persons tend to think, it's their problem, that they do not check, how it works. We will never see suggestions or even posts from gamers, that give up Factorio. We (the community) can always only estimate that.

So it is really no wonder, that there are more gamers, that suggest more complexity than less. But the real art is to make a game less complex.

I don't agree with your view of gamplay vs complexity.

Well, your opinion. You may explain me a better view, if you have one. I need just an objective score of how useful an idea is for the game and till now "added gameplay vs. added complexity" was always an good enough measure. But to put it right: This is just something I use to avoid useless discussions. This is not so, that it hinders any developer to implement it either and that happened also some times. But in general me and the devs have the same interest: Pushing the game!

And anyway, the concept we are asking for is simple.

Exactly: It can be modded. I think a basic waste system can be implemented within some hours.
oh, and there are already some mods:
https://mods.factorio.com/?page=1&q=waste

buildings should commonly have more than one output product.

Again: This is possible since version 0.9 or so... Good question: Why didn't the devs use this for the vanilla game?
The only logical answer is: There are reasons why waste and similar ideas (like "boxing" viewtopic.php?f=80&t=19343 - which btw. falls into the same category of "will not be implemented cause too complex") are not in the game yet! And I have already pointed to some of the reasons. In most cases there are more; maybe they have playtested that already and didn't found that useful.

In any case you can be sure: If waste-management would be a good gameplay it had already been implemented for a year or longer.

And why is boxing and waste in the list of frequently suggested stuff: there are some elements still missing to make a really good mod out of it. For the boxing for example the ability to count the production correctly. For the waste for example the ability to have more than a pollution cloud. See viewtopic.php?f=80&t=3440 What do biters do in their spare time? (Pheromone pathfind).
I think enabling modding is in any case much more useful, than stupid implementation. And I'm always for this way, cause it enables a slow but steady progression into something, which we are all (or most of us) can agree with.

Is that an evil you are trying to avoid? It is not fundamentally complex, but the gameplay that results should create the logistics nightmare that players desire and perceive when he sees the factorio adverts. Factorio already successfully has it working, but just on one building : the oil refinery.

Yeah and you will find dozens of questions in the support-board, about how the refinery works, if you search for it. It's just well researched fact in game-industry, that the hurdle of complexity must not be too low or too high to make a good game.

If factorio didn't have complex logistic problems, no-one would be here. Give us more of the same, it should be obvious, and the one word concept of 'waste' is a good way to do it. No one cares about 'different gameplay'. We can play millions of other games for that.

Sorry, even after re-reading all of this thread and some of the old ideas I can only point to modding this. And then we will see. In some cases a modder finds a new kind of game-play while implementing stuff and then it's again a good subject here.

And I don't see that as an disadvantage of this. This suggestion is not "bad" in any way, just when I say "no, not into vanilla". Indeed it's well thought and it brings in some aspects, that are not discussed before.

You can search them yourself. I help you:
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=+%2B%22too+complex%22

There are 170 posts. I've checked the 1st 2 pages out of 9.
Not one of the posts with the term 'too complex' is actually complaining about the game being too complex.
Seems you've installed in the whole community the myth meme that the game is already complex as it can viably be, and any increase will trash it, because thats all the 'too complex' search returns - just echos of this baseless fear of making the game too complex, without a speck of evidence to support it.

e.g.

> but I would also like to caution you against making this Z level system too complex
> The only point against this is that perhaps it would be too complex of a problem for players
> They probably think that it would be too complex/annoying to handle for the player having to put an extra turret module
> we shouldn't add much to the game content anymore or it will become too complex and big for the newcomers
as ssilk pointed out over in that other thread having too many different conditions would turn out way too complex

You are the forum guru. You know the discussions. Yet you need me to search for you. That doesn't make sense. The truth is you are weaving away from the fact that no one complains of the game being too complex, and there is a consensus to make it more complex. You've got to drop your love for this myth.

This seem to be your only card

you will find dozens of questions in the support-board, about how the refinery works

I believe it. I had to look up a few ways to do things. But I didn't mind, the answer was easy to find, understand and implement. Factorio doesn't have in game tips at the point of being faced with a new concept, its still in dev.
This does not in any way suggest that the existing core logistics gameplay are already optimally complex.


You already put in logic circuits, which can create infintite complexity. Yet the game is so simple it doesn't require logic circuits. It barely needs filter inserters, arguable only useful for noobs, I used them sparcly on my 1st vanilla. With some effort players even manage without belts. Talk about too fricking simple.

There is a reason why there is a mass call for more complexity.

As for mods. Looks like that is the only way forward here. I knew we were all head strong young men, some drunk on power of the community and with absolute determination to see that their view was dominant. But here its just about killing the consensus and installing myths, based on nothing except pride. There's no vote, no effort by the forum leaders to analyse the consensus.
After 5 years u still need noobs like me to make a start on the most rudimentary analysis of forum posts ( see above ).

I thought the game content was great, but oddly cuts itself short, I came here to find out why. I've found out.
Back to spacechem for now. I haven't given up hope, maybe a dev will break the 'OMG complexity is coming to get us!' spell currently cursing this place, I'll come back to check in a few months.

Here are some examples of mods that satisfy some of what the OP wants:

Wear and Tear
The "Wear and Tear" mod (which I've never used) has machines degrade after they have been used for a long time. When a machine is degraded it produces more pollution and is less efficient. The mod also allows degraded machines to be automatically upgraded.

Hard Crafting
The "Hard Crafting" mod adds some waste products to the mining output. It also adds "scrap metal" to some recipes, and allows scrap metal to be turned back into iron plates and copper plates. And it adds an incinerator entity which can be used to destroy waste products.

I am not convinced that this belongs in vanilla. The best way to convince me would be if there was a very popular mod that did this.

meems - SpaceChem is awesome. I'm sorry you're not happy with the support you're getting here. IMHO Factorio is an awesome game too. One of the challenges for moderators and devs is balancing between desires of different community members. As I have found out myself, just because I want something doesn't mean it's going to be put into vanilla. Unless you're planning on making your own game studio, someone else is going to be calling the shots about which features get included. I'm sorry you're not happy with the decision here.

meems wrote:Not one of the posts with the term 'too complex' is actually complaining about the game being too complex.

Because it isn't yet. It has a nice learning curve. If you make the steps of this curve too high it becomes too complex.

You are the forum guru. You know the discussions. Yet you need me to search for you. That doesn't make sense. The truth is you are weaving away from the fact that no one complains of the game being too complex, and there is a consensus to make it more complex. You've got to drop your love for this myth.

Meems: "I'm the guy, who found out, that you speak too much of too much complexity. But the game is not complex, even if everybody wants more complexity."
ßilk: "Yes, it's because I try to keep the complexity low to keep Factorio beginner-friendly."

This seem to be your only card

No. My card is, that waste is not implemented since 2013, where the first ideas came up.
Which leads to the logical consequence, that it seems not to be so important, cause the game-value is too low (cause the complexity is too high vs. added game).

And yes: I use the term "too complex" often, yes, but what I always mean is the ratio between added game-value vs. added complexity. I'll try to use that more correctly.

There is a reason why there is a mass call for more complexity. As for mods.

Yes, gamers call for more complexity, cause they mastered the game finally and now want to have more. Which is a good sign. I don't know any game, which will not have gamers, that wish here something, there something. It would be bad, if not.
This is so in any software-development. The problems begin, if developers fulfill all those requests without thinking. There are many examples of games that have been destroyed by the community, cause the developers just fulfilled the wishes of the community. Cause satisfying all such needs leads to software-monsters or breaks with basic ideas of software (or makes them too complex or, or or...). This is a well known fact. Think to Office: A software-monster with so many functions, that there is a whole industry to learn users to use it.

Software like Office was the way to develop software in 1980/90 but is not the way, software is developed nowadays in 2010+. One method against this kind of software-development is "agile software development". It uses the term "business-value" and "return of investment" to point to the problem: it makes no sense to implement something in software, when it doesn't increase the value of the software (and if there are other, better ideas).

So it's like here. I'm sure this "waste idea" is in the backlog of the devs. But it's more to the end of the list, because (again) the game-value is too bad (compared to other ideas).

With other word: There are ideas that seem to be better. And this since 2013. Which is - again - an obvious sign, that it might never come into vanilla.

After 5 years u still need noobs like me to make a start on the most rudimentary analysis of forum posts ( see above ).

Well, I always appreciate discussions, that point me to routine-blindness. When you are 5 years in some kind of routine, you cannot see such things anymore.
But it isn't really so, that you are the only one.

ssilk wrote:

meems wrote:Not one of the posts with the term 'too complex' is actually complaining about the game being too complex.

Because it isn't yet. It has a nice learning curve. If you make the steps of this curve too high it becomes too complex.

Thats evading the point.
You might as well say General Relativity has a nice learning curve because no one ever complains its too simple.
A nicely balanced difficulty will be reflected in the community with a substantial number of posts expressing too complex \ too simple views.
The devs have never dared increase logistics complexity to find a balance.

Wrt to learning curves :
The biter evolve \ airplane level that is included as a warm up to vanilla is much harder than vanilla. It took me around 10 deaths + reloads to complete it. Am I complaining it was too hard? No. That was the most fun level. Same with the car packed full of gear level. Much harder than vanilla. They were challenging.

You are taking the position that
- multiple output buildings would be too complex for average players.
- the devs would be forced to make beginners deal with multiple output buildings immediately

Both these are myths. Most games have learning curves. Factorio's is a crippled mess, with the warm up levels harder than the vanilla. Makes it all the more absurd that the leaders have brainwashed themselves into keeping vanilla easy.
That players still love Factorio despite the total mess of the learning curve and end difficulty shows how good the core gameplay is, it can take this unwarranted crippling by the devs, and still shine.

waste is not implemented since 2013, where the first ideas came up. Which leads to the logical consequence, that it seems not to be so important, cause the game-value is too low (cause the complexity is too high vs. added game).

i.e. if the idea was good it would have been implemented by now, therefore we can dismiss it.
And what were the reason for dismissing it? If it was ' because it would make the game too complex ', I haven't seen a speck of evidence to support that. This is after 5 years of dev, and this thread, which ought to contain the best evidence to support your myth, yet there is nothing.

And yes: I use the term "too complex" often, yes, but what I always mean is the ratio between added game-value vs. added complexity. I'll try to use that more correctly.

... and as you say, implementing more outputs per buildings is not much more complex, but would increase focus on the most fun part of the game, transport logistics.

There is a reason why there is a mass call for more complexity. As for mods.

Yes, gamers call for more complexity, cause they mastered the game finally and now want to have more.

Oh man, and here's another pillar in the factorio complexity myth.

>mastered

I haven't mastered factorio. I'm a noob who joined the community in Feb 2017 and who completed vanilla on his 1st go, because vanilla was easy, perhaps very easy.
That you have to suggest noobs like me are 'masters' is a symptom of the myth.

The problems begin, if developers fulfill all those requests without thinking. There are many examples of games that have been destroyed by the community,

We've had a decent think about it on this thread. I've even generalized the problem for you from waste to multiple output buildings. The conclusions can only be : the idea that factorio would die if the logistic complexity increased is a myth, with no evidence, perpetuated for no reason.

If there was evidence it would have been linked to in an FAQ back in 2013 , as " look, this is what happens if we increase the logistic complexity with multiple output buildings. it kills the game. find out for yourself : " , followed by a few pages of agreement from players. That thread does not exist.

We are not blindly trying out an idea here, there are good principled reasons listed in this thread and well as vanilla being too easy for lack of logistic complexity.

Think to Office: A software-monster with so many functions, that there is a whole industry to learn users to use it.

Using a massive piece of work software as a prop. Just more scaremongering instead of looking at factors at hand, because all the fact suggest factorio would benefit from more difficult transport logistics.

I'm sure this "waste idea" is in the backlog of the devs. But it's more to the end of the list, because (again) the game-value is too bad (compared to other ideas).

I'm still waiting to see a speck of evidence to support this.
So far, as of March 2017, the total is :

0

With other word: There are ideas that seem to be better.

The devs are wasting their time with other ideas. There are over 1 million games out there that have other ideas. We can play those if we want other ideas. Factorio has unique transport logistics. That is its appeal, nothing else. A strategy of loading every other gaming concept into factorio will just dilute it.
Adding new logistics equipment makes the problem of logistics easier, so since vanilla is already easy \ too easy, its a waste of time the devs working on that. The player already has extremely powerful logistic tools that far exceed what vanilla requires.
The only way forward is to making the logistics harder.

ssilk, I would appreciate it more if you would try to move this discussion forward by exploring it, instead of working to a script of just trying to kill it with myths ad naseum. Ok I am hearin you on that note. Now tell me, how would you make the concept of waste work in factorio? What gameplay features would you anticipate? How would it mesh \ interact with existing gameplay?

mattj256 wrote:I am not convinced that this belongs in vanilla. The best way to convince me would be if there was a very popular mod that did this.

meems - SpaceChem is awesome. I'm sorry you're not happy with the support you're getting here. IMHO Factorio is an awesome game too. One of the challenges for moderators and devs is balancing between desires of different community members. As I have found out myself, just because I want something doesn't mean it's going to be put into vanilla. Unless you're planning on making your own game studio, someone else is going to be calling the shots about which features get included. I'm sorry you're not happy with the decision here.

thks for the mod links.

> The best way to convince me would be if there was a very popular mod that did this.

That is sensible and is likely the only way we are going to move the game forward. The problem I have with this philosophy is that we might as well not have core devs. Bye bye. Just let the community control the game dev.
But we have core devs, so we might as well try to use them.

>IMHO Factorio is an awesome game too.

Of course. I'm only wasting time arguing points against a wall here because I really enjoyed my 1st 2 weeks of Factorio.


As I have found out myself, just because I want something doesn't mean it's going to be put into vanilla. Unless you're planning on making your own game studio, someone else is going to be calling the shots about which features get included. I'm sorry you're not happy with the decision here.

I am a game dev with finished titles. And I've long wanted to make a logistics simcity dune2 type game. That is why factorio really appealed to me. Now that factorio has given me a template, I could write the correct version, without the gaping flaw of tendency to create overly simple logistic puzzles coupled with giving the user very powerful logistic tools. But right now it boils down to one single thing : the tendency for nearly all factorio building to have one output, crippling the core logistics part of the game. This could be solved with one simple game concept. Waste. But it doesn't have to be waste, it could be anything, as long as the 'one output per building' meme is killed. Just saying that waste is an easy way to do it, which also has potential to synergise with the existing game concept of pollution.

I've tried to explain this isn't my opinion, but is a fact, backed by data. But whats the good in doing that if the factorio staff can't discern opinion from facts? Are the devs trained to discern facts from opinions? Are their brains wired to naturally respond? My guess is no and no.

meems wrote:I am a game dev with finished titles.

Cool that's nice what the title of the games?

meems wrote: But right now it boils down to one single thing : the tendency for nearly all factorio building to have one output, crippling the core logistics part of the game.

Take a look into refinery they produce 3 output items.

And for many new players that's a huge step to understand and to deal with oil.

meems wrote:

waste is not implemented since 2013, where the first ideas came up. Which leads to the logical consequence, that it seems not to be so important, cause the game-value is too low (cause the complexity is too high vs. added game).

i.e. if the idea was good it would have been implemented by now, therefore we can dismiss it.
And what were the reason for dismissing it? If it was ' because it would make the game too complex ',

No. Please read again in my last post: I mean in that case (and most others) "added complexity vs. added game-value". I shorted that in the last time and you pointed correctly to this. And I excuse me for this simplification.

I haven't mastered factorio. I'm a noob who joined the community in Feb 2017 and who completed vanilla on his 1st go, because vanilla was easy, perhaps very easy.

We now know: It was easy for you. Which makes you clearly to an expert.

We've had a decent think about it on this thread. I've even generalized the problem for you from waste to multiple output buildings. The conclusions can only be : the idea that factorio would die if the logistic complexity increased is a myth, with no evidence, perpetuated for no reason.

There is no such idea. Please keep at the facts, you turn them for my taste too often in your direction.

If there was evidence it would have been linked to in an FAQ back in 2013 , as " look, this is what happens if we increase the logistic complexity with multiple output buildings. it kills the game. find out for yourself : " , followed by a few pages of agreement from players. That thread does not exist.

The forum was at that time a couple of users, all posts could be read within half an hour per week! And the two devs posted their opinions about ideas.
Have you read all that posts? Did you?

We are not blindly trying out an idea here, there are good principled reasons listed in this thread and well as vanilla being too easy for lack of logistic complexity.

What do you know about the changes that will come with 0.15?

With other word: There are ideas that seem to be better.

The devs are wasting their time with other ideas.

I'm your opinion. But only cause I also have ideas, that I want to be implemented. Fact is - and I already explained it - that they sit down and think about this ratio between added complexity and added game value. And they estimate also, how complicated this is to implement in code and how many more sales it will bring. And so they value the ideas. Which is of course quite subjective. But it doesn't matter much, that this value is really "correct", cause there are so many ideas that they have work for the next 3-5 years. All they need is to be right in more than 50%. Then it's good enough to sort it. And so it comes, that this is not implemented yet.

Now tell me, how would you make the concept of waste work in factorio?

You learned a lot tricks in the argumentation curse: Turn the arguments against the opponent (above). And here: Let the opponent make the arguments for you.

But well, you got me. Perhaps I think two steps deeper, so you can see the difficulties.

I already told you, that I would make a mod. One of my first actions would be to write some functions, that change recipes so, that recipes will output "some waste".

I would write also some kind of "configuration" to add that only to some assemblies, not all. Cause if you add waste to every production you need to rebalance the whole game. Which is surely out of scope. I would add that especially to some of the chemical processes and more complex buildings which also require mass production. Red circuits is definitely a candidate but I think later: low dense structure for example.

What gameplay features would you anticipate?

Hm. Hm. All I can see is, that the player will have a big problem with this waste, cause it is just another item in the assemblies, furnaces and so on. So one "feature" will be per sure to handle around with filter inserters to output the wanted item on one belt and the waste item on the other.

And then what to do with that waste? There are tons of ideas. Perhaps reading the linked articles for good ideas. I like for example the idea of this thread of "making it like an ore". If the miners would work in the other way around this would be an interesting part of the game. So I would of course try out, if the miners will work in the other direction. And I would try to mod something, that works like a "reverse-mine" (deployer?). And then other technologies to destroy the waste.

BTW: You will come soon to the problem, that the "waste" item simply can be destroyed if you put it into a chest and shoot it? Nothing to be "re-mined". So the idea of "just storing" is in the end not really the best idea with waste, cause either you will be forced to build something to deposit stuff. Or it will add useless micromanagement if you "cheat": Wait, until enough items stored in chests and then destroy the chests and rebuild them. Or just add more and more chests.

So one of the many preconditions of this idea is, that a new feature will be implemented: item-types can be made indestructible. That is a quite difficult change: if there are items, that cannot be destroyed, it has many side effects in the game-engine. The heart of the game. Nobody knows, what's really needed here and what can be done.

How would it mesh \ interact with existing gameplay?

Well: I will not interact much. Playing with the waste is some kind of game in game.

For example what I mean: When I compare the waste idea with the boxing idea I would say boxing is the clear winner, cause there the boxes don't need to be dumped, they need to be transported back and forth, load empty box, transport loaded box, unload box, transport empty box back.

Without reading all this back and forth I can tell you from my experience modding that you wont likely see something with more outputs that the oil production, even less something like waste that has no other use than being waste: My mods add a ton of stuff and entangled recipes with multiple outputs and one can clearly see that the game or at least the interface isnt made with a lot of recipes and multiple outputs from recipes in mind. Also adding waste to the vanilla game would be a real mess, because the vanilla game doesnt really consists of a lot of intermediate items and that is good because it let's you learn the game and play around with the whole setting up, figuring out ratios, puzzling together machine kind of feel that the game wants to convey.
The base game provides a base line to start off, with mods adding content on top to your liking, may that be stuff you consider vanilla+ or big overhauls and additions.

ssilk wrote:No. Please read again in my last post: I mean in that case (and most others) "added complexity vs. added game-value". I shorted that in the last time and you pointed correctly to this. And I excuse me for this simplification.

Well if that's the latest version of your stance, then its an improvement. Before it was 'cos its too complex' , then it was 'because too much complexity , too little new gameplay ' , now its "added complexity vs. added game-value".

Complexity is gameplay. New gameplay in factorio is junk that gets in the way of the valuable gameplay ( transport logistics ), so you've curved round to the goal of 'game value' which I can agree with. The game value of factorio is found in transport logistics. The community seems to know this, and I will postulate there is a sickness symptom of this in the game features :

Because players have for years correctly sensed transport logistics is the gameplay jewel of factorio, they have been making suggestions to try improve the transport logistics. But, they've fallen into the 1st trap of player suggestions : they've made suggestions for more transport logistic tools, and the devs have gullibility complied with this. What has this done? Its reduced the focus on transport logistics, because the new tools make it easier, the puzzles get solved easier, and the player is left to get on with other more mudane things ( such as putting down 100 solar panels, and then soon after another 100, and another 100 ).
This noob error between noob devs and players has created a characteristic trait in the game : a load of cool highly powerful logistic tools, that far outstrip the game's capacity to create logistic puzzles.

So lets move onto noob error #2, between noob devs and players.
Creating logistic puzzle gamplay. At every turn, noob devs and players will try to kill this. Why? Because their minds are just working to fix puzzles, not create them. They are effectively playing factorio but at the dev level. A cool new ultra powerful logistic tool that teleports all items to their destination will appeal to them, but something that makes the puzzles more challenging will just strike them as awkward - slowing the game down - be a pain - be of no value- " what good does that do? " - " how does that help me ? " - " that will just screw up the game " - " will make the game too hard " - "too complex ". Pleasure comes from solving puzzles, so let the game create more puzzles. But players and noob devs will fall into this simple trap every time of solving puzzles before they even exist by piling on cool powerful tools but blocking every idea that creates puzzles.
Unfortunately as I said b4, the core gameplay of Factorio is good enough to take this mauling and still shine, so this fundamental dev error will play out for some time longer.

Hence we got the robots, that obsolete the transport logistics, hence killing the game. They are a nice cake at the end of the game, but they must stay at or near the end.

Its like everything has to be a shiny new toy. Its like trying to flood the market with gold, it doesn't make everyone more rich, it just reduces the value of gold.
Kids will never understand that adding awkward stuff in the game makes the shiny things in the game more shiny.

I haven't mastered factorio. I'm a noob who joined the community in Feb 2017 and who completed vanilla on his 1st go, because vanilla was easy, perhaps very easy.

We now know: It was easy for you. Which makes you clearly to an expert.

[/quote]
I'm a factorio noob.
If you want to portray me as a 'know it all' I'll tell you I'm a old dev, I understand gameplay better than most, and I'm seeing the same old mistakes on this forum as most places.

What do you know about the changes that will come with 0.15?

I can guess whats coming based on trail of changes in the last 14 versions : i.e. more logistics tools to solve even harder logistic problems, more other gameplay to dilute the game away from transport logisitics, and perhaps some simplifications to the transport logistics because noobs devs have responded to some player who'se thinking to try to solve a logistic problem at the dev level so and ended up stopping it even existing.
I hope the devs do a 180 and stop this.
From what I recall they were doing nuke power, which is obtuse to transport logistics, likely repeats, and possibly defeats the logistics of coal power, but its better than placing 500 solar panels, so meh, it will add a little to the game. Not an optimal investment of dev time if you ask me, but it could have been worse.

... that they sit down and think about this ratio between added complexity and added game value.

god, u go on about it enough to me. U do the same to the devs? Its your one trick pony. I was fully aware of the concept a decade ago while I worked as a game dev. Minor tweaks can create a load of new desirable complexity, while a long time spent on something that sounded good on paper can result in little complexity. It's just one of many principles that devs need in the back of their minds if they want to make a good game. They don't need to harp on about it. If you were a dev, you'd know instead of parading it around like its your claim to intellectual dev fame.
Like here, The simple act of just adding more outputs to buildings would unleash the dormant gameplay of filter inserters, logic circuits, belt splitters ( none of them, or many other features needed to complete vanilla, even by noobs ) , and push the already active gameplay of belts, underground belts and inserters.
But because the community is wrapped in the curse I've been elaborating on, it ain't going to happen.

...

I didn't expect you to actually think and write about the concept of waste. But you did, and I'm glad. You had the same thoughts I did : As you realised : the massive capacity of Chests would ruin the concept of waste. So their capacity should be significantly reduced. That's a good thing. The capacity was absurd, and likely yet another symptom of the noob feedback of devs and players trying to solve in-game puzzles at the dev level so preventing the puzzle from even existing. Reducing the capacity would also lessen the 'chest cheat'. A destroyed chest should spread its contents everywhere in a mess. Aliens could target destroy the good stuff like ammo and unplaced turrets, blue chips, and ignore the base stuff like ores and ... waste.
Waste should go in a land fill.
Perhaps we can discuss waste more.

Arch666Angel wrote:Without reading all this back and forth I can tell you from my experience modding that you wont likely see something with more outputs that the oil production, even less something like waste that has no other use than being waste: My mods add a ton of stuff and entangled recipes with multiple outputs and one can clearly see that the game or at least the interface isnt made with a lot of recipes and multiple outputs from recipes in mind. Also adding waste to the vanilla game would be a real mess, because the vanilla game doesnt really consists of a lot of intermediate items and that is good because it let's you learn the game and play around with the whole setting up, figuring out ratios, puzzling together machine kind of feel that the game wants to convey.
The base game provides a base line to start off, with mods adding content on top to your liking, may that be stuff you consider vanilla+ or big overhauls and additions.

I expect you'll be proved correct Angel.
The noob devs are going to have to make the same mistakes all unguided devs do :
- pile on powerful cool tools to solve in game puzzles
- 'improve' the gameplay efficiency by solving puzzles at the dev level so they never exist in game
- strip away all stuff and block any new stuff that might make the core gameplay more challenging ( read 'awkward', 'retarding', 'slowing', 'isn't a cool new tool' ).
- go seeking a shiny new toy at every dev creation ( trying to please a kid who already has 100 toys by giving him another toy - fail, even parents could beat the devs at deving here )

The game becomes shootting fish in a barrel.
how many of these 'updates' can factorio tank before collapsing?

I appreciate your mods. They bring more focus to the jewel of factorio - transport logistics.

Arch666Angel wrote:You dont want waste, just for the sake of adding waste to the game. You want to introduce an additional mechanic or chain to it, so it can be used for something, the waste has to go somewhere, just voiding it is not really rewarding.

I have a different opinion. Waste handling would give very interesting element to the game. I think that it would be too complicated to vanilla game, because it makes some player's styles impossible or impractical, but I would like to see waste handling implemented to your and Bob's mods. There could be a simple solutions to put waste into landfill or dump it in lake. Dumped waste would produce pollution and in lake it could spread soon in the whole area of water. There could be waste handling chains (with tiers and research) which would convert waste to less polluting form and produce some valuable products from it. However, interesting implementation would need certain modifications in game's pollution system.

I use always void chest with your mods. Can I really make reasonable closed material cycles with your mods? I have insane amounts of excess stone, hydrogen and oxygen. I know that stone can go through crystallization, but it would need insane number of filters and crystallizers, which would be boring to build. Maybe it would be more practical if I used Bob's modules and beacons intensively.

Hannu wrote:

Arch666Angel wrote:You dont want waste, just for the sake of adding waste to the game. You want to introduce an additional mechanic or chain to it, so it can be used for something, the waste has to go somewhere, just voiding it is not really rewarding.

I have a different opinion. Waste handling would give very interesting element to the game. I think that it would be too complicated to vanilla game, because it makes some player's styles impossible or impractical, but I would like to see waste handling implemented to your and Bob's mods. There could be a simple solutions to put waste into landfill or dump it in lake. Dumped waste would produce pollution and in lake it could spread soon in the whole area of water. There could be waste handling chains (with tiers and research) which would convert waste to less polluting form and produce some valuable products from it. However, interesting implementation would need certain modifications in game's pollution system.

I use always void chest with your mods. Can I really make reasonable closed material cycles with your mods? I have insane amounts of excess stone, hydrogen and oxygen. I know that stone can go through crystallization, but it would need insane number of filters and crystallizers, which would be boring to build. Maybe it would be more practical if I used Bob's modules and beacons intensively.

I'm glad you like my mods and I hope you are not offended by what I'm going to say: But if you are using void chest you are missing out the point you want here in the first place, my mod has byproducts that are useful elsewhere, not even pure waste products as in the suggestion and you are taking the simple route and just void them, isn't that a by counter-intuitive? You can and should use the byproduct to feed different/multiple chains that use them up, there are only a few fluids where voiding is a reasonable solution like mineralized or some of the waste waters, but even there you get some gain out of recycling and feeding them back into the system.

meems wrote:I understand gameplay better than most, and I'm seeing the same old mistakes on this forum as most places.

If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt that), I wonder why that is all you have to say: "Make the game more complex/demanding, more into logistic direction by implementing waste?". There are so many more ideas to make the game better, more obvious, more where it's clear, that it is an advantage.
Is that really all?

I can guess whats coming based on trail of changes in the last 14 versions : i.e. more logistics tools to solve even harder logistic problems, more other gameplay to dilute the game away from transport logisitics, and perhaps some simplifications to the transport logistics because noobs devs have responded to some player who'se thinking to try to solve a logistic problem at the dev level so and ended up stopping it even existing.
...
From what I recall they were doing nuke power, which is obtuse to transport logistics, likely repeats, and possibly defeats the logistics of coal power, but its better than placing 500 solar panels, so meh, it will add a little to the game. Not an optimal investment of dev time if you ask me, but it could have been worse.

I can point to the FFF's since 2017: Especially the science packs production are completely reworked and adds in my eyes a lot more complexity, but keeps a nice balance with game-play, cause it removes the alien artefacts.

So I need to repeat: Inform yourself more thorough before you post half-truths.

I was fully aware of the concept a decade ago while I worked as a game dev.

It's not my job as moderator to change how the devs work. I can moderate by explaining how they work.
And my personal opinion (as beeing also software-developer) I think they do a good job and cannot say from 400 kilometers away how they can make it better.

Minor tweaks can create a load of new desirable complexity, while a long time spent on something that sounded good on paper can result in little complexity.

Subjunctive is a narrow crest. There are about 12 people or so hanging into that, plus retailers, plus a big community and others, which live from this game. You need to prove that before. One way to prove that is to make a mod, cause in theory it sounds super, in practice (see other posts here) it is eventually quite different.

Like here, The simple act of just adding more outputs to buildings would unleash the dormant gameplay of filter inserters, logic circuits, belt splitters ( none of them, or many other features needed to complete vanilla, even by noobs ) , and push the already active gameplay of belts, underground belts and inserters.
But because the community is wrapped in the curse I've been elaborating on, it ain't going to happen.

The devil is in the details. Also discussed already.



So if you are a game developer I recommend to make a mod instead of discussing this with someone, that cannot change the things.

>So if you are a game developer I recommend to make a mod instead of discussing this with someone, that cannot change the things.

Nah. I'll stick around and see what the next version is like. If I don't think the direction is right, I'll make my own game! A mix of factorio and spacechem. Certainly much harder than factorio vanilla v0.14, but not as hard as spacechem.

meems wrote:>So if you are a game developer I recommend to make a mod instead of discussing this with someone, that cannot change the things.

Nah. I'll stick around and see what the next version is like. If I don't think the direction is right, I'll make my own game! A mix of factorio and spacechem. Certainly much harder than factorio vanilla v0.14, but not as hard as spacechem.

It's funny that you proclaimed yourself a professional dev and called the dev of factorio noob. And now instead of taking the challenge by creating the mods. You said you'll mixed the concept of 2 existing game to make your own instead of creating a new and original game.

Just saying! Peace !

Arch666Angel wrote: I'm glad you like my mods and I hope you are not offended by what I'm going to say: But if you are using void chest you are missing out the point you want here in the first place, my mod has byproducts that are useful elsewhere, not even pure waste products as in the suggestion and you are taking the simple route and just void them, isn't that a by counter-intuitive? You can and should use the byproduct to feed different/multiple chains that use them up, there are only a few fluids where voiding is a reasonable solution like mineralized or some of the waste waters, but even there you get some gain out of recycling and feeding them back into the system.

Well, I try to use side products but my personal limitations makes it sometimes too impractical. For example, my current base is a trainworld. I have about 25 separate factories intentionally distributed over large area and if I try to handle every product my train network will be too congested. I try also avoid bots in high volume transports. My base is currently at somewhat unstable state. I updated your mods (it was intentional risk) and have used couple of tens of hours to clean that mess. Maybe I find optimal flows when I get my sustained full production run again. Now always something (sulfur, topazes, diamonds, etc.) depletes and my factory throttles down.